Lawmakers say, 'Have a Coke and a tax'

SACRAMENTO  Californians would pay more for sugary beverages such as sodas, sweet teas and energy drinks under a proposal chugging through the legislature.

The sweetened beverage tax — which works out to a penny-per-ounce — is being hailed by supporters as a necessary tool to combat childhood obesity by reducing consumption. The tax is estimated to generate $1.7 billion a year for nutrition education, recreation programs and to improve the health of school meals.

Critics cast the measure as a money grab that would harm the slow-moving economy. They argue the proposal does little to boost personal responsibility and say it will take a combination of approaches, from more exercise to better food choices, to to tackle the obesity epidemic.

Sen. Bill Monning, the tax’s author, said the evidence is conclusive: Sugar-laden drinks are a chief contributor of increased calories leading to obesity and preventable chronic diseases among children.

Yes
16% (132)

No
84% (681)

813 total votes.

“By ignoring this reality, we not only sentence our children and future generations to a shorter life expectancy, we also incur billions of dollars in oftentimes preventable health care costs and lost economic output,” said Monning, D-Carmel.

The proposed beverage tax would require a two-thirds vote of the legislature. Opponents have sought to frame it as an example of Democrats overreaching after securing large majorities in both houses last November.

Looming special elections will determine whether they control a supermajority by the time the budget and taxes are voted on this summer.

Other Democratic-backed proposals include a 9.5 percent oil extraction tax to pay for education and state parks and a $2-a-pack increase in cigarette taxes to fund health-care programs.

Gov. Jerry Brown has said one of his biggest challenges will be to hold the line on spending by fellow Democrats after voters approved his Proposition 30 tax increases in November.

In California, at least five proposals to tax such beverages over the last two decades have been rejected. Sen. Joel Anderson, R-La Mesa, opposed the latest levy in committee.

Drinks with fewer than 25 calories per 12 ounces would be exempt. The tax would add $1.02 per six-pack; $2.04 per 12-pack and $4.08 per case of 12 ounce cans, including CRV. The rate of $1.28 per gallon is more than six times higher than taxes on wine or beer, according to an analysis.

California’s measure follows New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s crusade against large-sized sodas. The regulations, celebrated by some as pioneering and pilloried by others as the nanny state run amok, were struck down in court. The ensuing legal battle is expected to outlast the mayor’s tenure.

The cities of Richmond and El Monte put penny-per-ounce tax measures on the November ballot, with both losing by healthy margins. Accompanying measures that would have put the revenue toward obesity and diabetes prevention were overwhelmingly approved by voters in both cities.

Dr. Harold Goldstein, executive director of California Center for Public Health Advocacy, pointed to results from a Field Poll in February that found most Californians supported a tax on sweetened beverages should the money go to improve school nutrition and physical activity programs.

More than a third of adults and about 12.5 million children and adolescents are obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Proponents of the soda tax say more than 30 peer-reviewed studies conclude people who drink sugary beverages develop or have metabolic diseases, including cardiovascular disease, diabetes and obesity, compared with people who don’t indulge.

Dr. Jeffrey Schwimmer, a professor of pediatrics at University of California San Diego, said sugar-sweetened drinks account for a large amount of the calories in the diets of many Californians.

“Studies have shown again and again that collectively we do not do a good job accounting for calories in what we drink, in regards to how we balance out our total calories for the day,” said Schwimmer, director of the Fatty Liver Clinic at Rady Children’s Hospital. “The feedback mechanisms we get are different.”

Diabetes, fatty liver disease and hypertension can be caused by an abundance of fructose, Schwimmer said. That’s in addition to the calorie burden that itself can cause someone to become obese.

“What we see is that obesity worsens those other problems,” he said. “So it’s a vicious cycle.”

Schwimmer cautioned that the issues involve myriad factors and are far too complicated to boil down in a debate over taxing soft drinks.

Industry representatives say they are working to be part of the solution by offering more healthy beverage options.

Robert Achermann, representing the California-Nevada Soft Drink Association, said beverages that present a healthy alternative to soft drinks would be subject to the tax.

“We think the marketplace is responding,” Achermann said.

Barry Broad, representing the California Teamsters Public Affairs Council, said his members manufacture some of the 350 bottled and fountain sugared beverages subject to the proposal. Broad said their employers have made it clear that — if it passes — the consequences include layoffs.

“The question is not whether people need to reduce their consumption of sugary soft drinks,” Broad said. “But the question is whether doing it through taxation policy is the best approach.